[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question for Matthew Garrett (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The following people in Debian leadership roles have also expressed their
>> support:
>>   Andreas Schuldei (DPL candidate)
>>   Angus Lees (DPL candidate)
>>   Branden Robinson (DPL candidate)
>>   Jonathan Walther (DPL candidate)
> Matthew, would you like to elaborate on why you're the only DPL
> candidate not to have expressed some support for this plan? What are
> your objections to it?

Despite the lack of representation from many people affected
(architecture porters, for example), the conclusions reached have been
presented as something of a done deal[1]. I don't think that's the way
Debian should work. The proposals should have been made before the
meeting took place, and people's opinions taken into account before
conclusions were reached.

I also have concerns about the organisation of the meeting. The first
public announcement appeared two days before the meeting took place. Up
until shortly before this point, even the DPL hadn't been told that it
was going to happen. Meetings of this sort are obviously useful tools,
but organising them without notifying the rest of the project does
nothing to improve the transparency of our decision-making process.

Frankly, to a large extent this meeting was everything Debian
/shouldn't/ be. We've had conclusions reached without the decision
making process being made clear[2]. We've had no opportunity for people
to raise potential issues in advance. The way this was carried out does
nothing to improve communication or consensus.

(I should point out that I don't necessarily disagree with the
conclusions reached, only the way that they have been reached. Without
knowing more about the details, I /can't/ reach any sort of conclusion
about whether this is the right solution)

[1] The text has actually been altered since I was sent a copy to
approve, and it's rather less objectionable now - however, I wasn't sent
a copy of the updated one.

[2] The text I was asked to agree to contained "the crafting of a
release plan for etch", not "the crafting of a prospective release plan
for etch", so the degree to which they've been presented as conclusions
has been reduced.

Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.vote@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: